Forget 48 frames - now Cameron wants 60 frames per second

Just out of curiosity...how many here criticizing Cameron's choice have seen - first hand - 60p projected theatrically? Not a nasty and inherently artifact-filled interlaced TV broadcast or video. Not LCD "240Hz magic". But actual footage shot at 60p, edited at 60p, and projected in a movie theatre at 60p? I'd love to have the opportunity to see that - and without doing so I don't know that I could say things against the idea of using 60p creatively.
 
I was on a test screening where they demoed different pro theater projectors at different frame rates - it was the first time, I saw a soap opera on a silverscreen.
60p got booed out - and most of us where professionals.

O.K., no artifacts (since they had really good prepared footy), no 24000Hz Voodoo-Shmoodoo.
The footy was from 35mm, Phantom, Red, Alexa.

It was like you are looking trough a big window instead of watching a film - it totally took away all the magic.
It´s hard to describe. It was too real. Technically and picture wise it looked mind blowing, but there was no drama at all, nothing narrative.
Just a big - but boring natural - documentary. It left you with the feeling you just saw the 8 o clock news on a real big TV.

Frank

P.S. I have to say, that the 24p and 25p versions didn´t really look like film ether (motion wise) and you got that stuttering motion (especially on areas with hard contrast), but only on the shots, done with the video cameras - the 24p 35mm film was the only one that looks like you would expect.
That leads me to my theory that most of the motion problems (stuttering) we see on video today , is originated in the way the electronic shutter works.
 
Just wanna be clear. Myself and many people here aren't arguing that a given director is wrong for choosing 48fps or 60, or what-have-you. Those discussions have been driven into the ground on this forum.

What is at issue is the methodology of Cameron's decision to go to 60fps. If he thinks that 60fps is going to help him tell the story more effectively, great! But, to come out and say that Hollywood needs to compete with broadcast TV standards is just...stupid.

FPS is another tool for artistic expression. And it should be used as such.
 
Yes I guess the 65mm Showscan format with a frame rate that starts at 30 fps and goes all the way up to 60 fps just looks like a cheesy soap opera video that was shot with a 480i interlace video camera.
 
James cameron is a popcorn salesman, of course he thinks more is better, but we all know it's not, if you want to keep shooting 24 or 25 then do it, what difference does it make? i can't really see this 60p buisiness taking off with the new generation of digital film makers who are striving for the film look, which has in large part been achieved by the widespread implementation of 24 and 25p, 60p seems like a backwards step if anything.
 
60p will work for 3d many times better than 24. It will finally get rid of focusing problems on fast moving subjects. Currently every action scene in 3d is un-focuseable. Avatar used slowmotion to hide it pretty well and very careful cameramoves. Though when an object was close to the camera, 24p problems were horrible.

I would bet that Avatar 2 will work much better in 60p 3d than the first one. It also fits the idea of the movie more. Being transported into another world. Not in a film way but a very documentary like approach.
 
60p might not be appropriate for regular 'real life' narrative filmmaking, but in a primarily 3D computer generated world like Avatar, perhaps that added 'realism' will be a boon, and make the fact that the environment we're looking at isn't real, less obvious?
 
There is a company that sells a gadget that you put in a filter tray and mimics a mechanical shutter - differences are day and night.
Click to expand...

Care to share a link to the company that produces this gadget? Seems interesting.

D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top